Silly horror movie references notwithstanding, after Reagan’s history-making speech to Gorbachev in 1987, it is utterly inconceivable that Republicans in America — in 2025 — would be supporting another Russian dictator and Stalin-worshipper. But yet, here we are. To make matters worse, a confident and senior advisor to the President of the United States is actively working with the Russians to manipulate POTUS into helping the Russian president solidify gains in an unprovoked war of aggression — through what can only be described as a de facto surrender by Ukraine.
After spending the majority of my life criticizing Democrats for being socialists and communists (they still are, in my personal opinion, btw), now we have Republicans doing the same thing. Holy f#$%ing sh%#!
What does that mean for the future of our republic? For America’s reputation and legitimacy as the leader of the “free” world?
Remember when I talked about that thing that would help solve our problems? This is probably THE single most common “gotcha” people try and hit me with. Do you really think the people who wrote the Constitution wanted people to have machine guns and bazookas? Well they didn’t have those things back in the 1700s, so no, but you know what people could own? Cannons. Actual f**king military artillery. So today, based on that historic example, yes, they would be okay with people owning machine guns and bazookas.
That being said, I’ll stipulate that mental illness is a ‘thing’ now (and getting worse, it seems) where it either wasn’t in the 1700-1800s or it wasn’t so prevalent that the Founders should have worried about ‘Bob’s bazooka’ (er, ‘cannon’).
The problem with that is, without a law degree but with a decent set of circumstances, I could probably convince the Supreme Court that a fully automatic “assault” rifle (we’ll come back to that in a different discussion) is not only my right, but is a necessity. So how do we solve it once and for all? Define “well regulated” and “shall not be infringed” to start with.
Think about recent active assailants — a lot of dead bodies when you put them all together, and kids being among them makes it even more heart-wrenching. Here’s what you don’t ever hear about: the number of mass killings that are stopped before they ever start… by armed bystanders. That doesn’t happen very often, you say? What about Indiana, Colorado Springs, West Virginia, and even research that demonstrates the fact (and there’s a lot of research). And there’s even a decent list.
So I’m obviously a ‘gun guy’ — which you probably already figured out — and between the military and recreational shooting with friends and fellow vets, I’m a decent shot for an old guy. So if someone ever tries to perpetrate a mass killing in front of me, it’s all over for them, right? Well, it depends. In my state, if a business displays a ’no weapons’ sign then it’s a crime if you carry a firearm there. So every doctor’s office and hospital, some restaurants, and many private businesses are ‘gun-free zones.’ The problem with that is that criminals and psychos don’t give a damn about the hospital, restaurant, or theater’s no-weapon policy.
Does that mean we need to give everyone a gun and turn ‘em loose? Not a chance. Here’s my take on the Second Amendment: I’d change it to say “[a] well trained Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” [emphasis mine]. Notice that the difference is training. Regulation, sure, but remember that if it’s not specified in the Constitution then you’re treading on very thin ice.
Met up with a buddy of mine a couple of weeks ago and sampled a stack of whiskeys I’d not had before, including a couple of big time winners, like the EH Taylor.
Now I won’t get into the flavor profiles and all of that, because there are a million other people out there doing that stuff and they are a lot better than I will ever be. Suffice it to say that this one is worth the price, and was better in the Glencairn glass (my version of fancy) than it was in a sipping glass with an ice sphere. I know a lot of guys cringe seeing anything about the stainless steel ‘balls’, but here we are. Take it or leave it.
There was quite the kerfuffle when The Newsroom’s now-infamous monologue came out, and there were multiple fact-checks on the stats (like this one) that showed the numbers were true.
Even the conservative news outlet The Hill has written about it, so what’s the deal? In WW2, the US reluctantly entered a world war and emerged as the symbol of freedom and fight against oppression. But wars against communists in Korea and Vietnam (not wrong, per se, but not fights against the extermination of an entire group of people), Iraq, and proxy wars against a whole stack of others, have taken a nation that “fought wars for moral reasons” to a nation that fights to shape the destiny of others based on the views of the political leader at that moment.
But hey, maybe the US being the world’s policeman is the right way to do things — it’s not, in my personal opinion — but why are we doing it alone? Well, we shouldn’t be — and NATO stepping up its spending is a positive sign.
So I’ve said a lot of words, and highlighted military power and education, specifically, but what does it all mean? It means that we need to focus on America First (judge me if you want to) but not America Only — as The Newsroom put it, “[w]e sacrificed [for others], we cared about our neighbors … and we never beat our chest. We built great big things, made ungodly technological advances, explored the universe, cured diseases, and cultivated the world’s greatest artists and the world’s greatest economy … [w]e aspired to intelligence; we didn’t belittle it … [a]nd we were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed.”
So get informed. America can — and should be the example for all others; the “shining city upon a hill” originally coined by Winthrop and quoted by Reagan. We can be the greatest country in the world without acting like we are — or worse, imposing our will on others and sending in our military when they don’t do what we want. How many rich people do you see walking around talking about how rich they are? The stupid, arrogant, ridiculous ones, I’m betting was your answer. Same concept here.
American Exceptionalism isn’t dead, but is waning and, without our intervention now, will soon be.
It’s been a while since I wrote anything, in part because I had a good friend who became seriously ill recently. It was a reminder that, no matter what the ‘macro’ looks like, you have to take care of yourself. Politics, guns, good whiskey, and (most importantly) bacon are super important but — all joking aside — looking after your health is what gives you the time to concentrate on all that other stuff. Dying in the defense of liberty and the destruction of tyranny is about as noble as it gets, but dying because you’re not looking after your health is silly.
You’ll only see one criticism of the Constitution from me (2 if you count the reason for the first one): the Founders rejected the suggestion to institute term limits for Congress — they exist for everyone but Congress. The second one (if you want to separate it from the first, is that the Founders assumed that those who followed in their footsteps would be good, honorable people.)
Why? Federalist 53, quoted by ThoughtCo, states, in part, “[some] members of Congress will … become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them” (emphasis mine).
James Madison, like most of the Founders, assumed that future generations would be just as virtuous as they were, and would answer the call to service out of patriotism and a desire to further the cause of liberty. Madison states elsewhere in Fed. 53 that legislators should have “upright intention and a sound judgment” to serve. Boy did they assume way too much of future generations! Instead, we now have career politicians that “serve” only to enrich themselves and we have become the pawns in their pursuit of self-enrichment instead of those to whom their service to nation is obligated.
Dozens of people, CGI and animation,, ziplines in topical paradises, and productions that are closer to short movies than brief advertisements for products — it all adds up to one thing: they have a lot of money to spend. And it makes sense, right? After all, the United States is just one of two countries on Earth that allows “direct to consumer” advertising by drug companies. The big pharma lobby has spent a crap ton to ensure that — and the lack of regulation is one of the biggest reasons why the US pays more for prescriptions than anyone else on Earth (including other developed countries).
We don’t know each other well yet, so I have to actually say this one: I am not an advocate for government-run healthcare. After all, name one thing the government has done — that does not start with “fight the _ in World War _” — and has done well. You can’t. I’ll settle for naming one thing the government has done for the price it said it would. (Spoiler: you can’t.) Why? Because it’s the same government that reportedly throws away brand new stuff so they can buy replacements to ensure it uses the entire budget (aka “use it or lose it”).
All of that to say: healthcare can’t be a government thing, but I can make a decent case (in my opinion, at least) that regulating drug advertising is one of the few things the Commerce Clause actually applies to. (You’ll notice a common theme with Congress is that the overwhelming majority of the legislation they pass is ostensibly born out of the authority granted by, you guessed it: the Commerce Clause.) If Congress’ role is to regulate the bear minimum it needs to so the country and the states can operate efficiently — including ensuring its citizens aren’t scammed or taken advantage of — then this makes sense, right?
But yet, here we are. And this has been happening long enough that, short of some sort of dramatic shift in public disengagement in our political and economic systems, big pharma knows they’re safe and sound — while you shell out $1,000+ per dose of that drug that cost $100 to make. They have to pay for all of the R&D to create that drug, you say? You’re not wrong.
But if that drug is truly needed and works well enough that those commercials don’t take 30-45 of their 60 seconds to talk about all the side effects that are worse than what the drug treats, then they should sell enough to make a profit — enough that their initial costs are covered, and then some — while ensuring that you don’t have to be in the top 25% of earners to afford it. Right? And if drug companies can’t woo you with fancy, expensive ads so that you push your doctor to prescribe the drug because you think you, too will be able to zipline in the Amazon after taking it, then those drugs become commodities and now have to win sales based on price and merit — just like everything else you buy.
So if government is terrible at everything (maybe not “everything,” but definitely “most things”), and the Commerce Clause gives it power to regulate “larger interstate commerc[e]” (Cornell Law’s summary of SCOTUS’ ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden), then there is a way to ensure the free market is preserved while also ensuring companies don’t screw consumers because they need a medication (which is even more important when that medication is life saving).
BUT… and it’s a big, hairy “but”: there such a thing as the 14 Amendment, which says in Section 1, “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (emphasis mine). But it says “citizens” right there, dude. People here unlawfully aren’t citizens. You’re right. Except notice the semicolon. Then notice at the authors used “citizens” in the first sentence, but not the second. An accident? They forgot? One dude wrote the first part and some other dude wrote the second? Maybe, but the plain text creates a distinction between ‘abridging the rights of citizens’ and denying “any person” of due process. The SCOTUS has universally applied the Due Process Clause to both federal and state cases, so hanging your hat on that word doesn’t work, either.
By the way, it’s worth saying that if your position is that the Constitution only applies to citizens, then feel free to deport yourself to wherever your lineage is from — because all immigration is solely because it’s explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Period. (“Hard stop,” as my teenagers like to say. Insert eye roll here.)
Despite what the ACLU might say, unlawful entry and continued presence in the US is not just a civil matter — it is also criminal. That being said, snatching people from their immigrationappointments (2 separate links) — where they are doing the right thing and going through the process legally is crazy.
And ICE detaining US citizens because they think they might be here unlawfully is never acceptable — we fire city cops when they arrest the wrong person, and that’s usually just before the person wins a lawsuit for unlawful detention.
So like my thoughts on Israel-Palestine, you can be anti-unlawful entry/immigration AND pro-civil rights. Don’t let the media or politicians manipulate you into ignoring the facts of either of those points.
ARTICLE V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. [Emphasis mine.]
Pretty straightforward, eh? Congress starts the process, or We start the process. Don’t like guns? Then revise the 2nd Amendment to clarify “a well regulated militia” and/or “shall not be infringed”.
Think only a biological man and biological woman should be allowed to get married? Amend the Constitution to define marriage as just that. What about abortion? You guessed it. Congressional term limits? Don’t even get me started.
Then why haven’t we done this yet??? Because if politicians insist on settling the hot-button issues once and for all, then what can they use to continue to divide us — so they can stay in office and continue to accumulate wealth and power?
Bacon, Guns & Whiskey 